On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Determined effort to link in the face of warnings is only a behavior problem once it has been established that making the link is inappropriate and the warnings are necessary. But for the attack sites policy, this is the *very thing in dispute*.
Please try to separate the two issues. No separate policy is needed in order to request people not to link to sites that habitually engage in harassment and outing. Existing policies already cover this, as was made plain in the MONGO arbitration. It's an unreliable source (hence invalid in the article) and a site rife with harassment (hence inappropriate in project space).
*Pages with attacks*, not *the entire site*.
The problem I have with the way the MONGO ruling is being enforced is that -- apparently -- a single admin can, on the basis of an attack on a single page, decide that the site including that page is "an attack site", and then that decision automatically means that *no page on that entire site* can ever be linked to from anywhere in enwiki.
I'm sorry, but it's absurd.